G.R. No. L-23117 November 17, 1967
MOISES M. COLCOL, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE, VICENTE DEL FIERRO, ET AL., and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

1. To secure a P5,000 loan from the Philippine Bank of Commerce, Vicente del Fierro, Luis de Leon, Moises Colcol, and Working Press Corporation jointly and severally executed a promissory note on July 13, 1947.
2. On May 25, 1954, the bank sued all signatories for the amount due. Colcol, in his answer, denied liability, claiming he merely acted as a guarantor and received no part of the loan.
3. On December 16, 1954, the Court of First Instance rendered a judgment on the pleadings against Colcol’s co-defendants, excluding Colcol from that decision.
4. On September 18, 1957, during the hearing against Colcol, neither he nor his counsel appeared. The court proceeded to receive the plaintiff’s evidence and, on November 15, 1957, ordered Colcol to pay jointly and severally with his co-defendants.
5. Colcol filed a petition to set aside the decision, alleging excusable negligence: his lawyer’s new clerk failed to bring the notice of hearing to the lawyer’s attention, merely filing it in the case folio.
6. The trial court denied the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, ruling that: (a) Colcol’s petition, treated as a motion for new trial, contained an affidavit of merits but failed to state facts showing a valid defense; and (b) the alleged negligence was not excusable as ordinary prudence could have guarded against it.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of Colcol’s petition to set aside the judgment, which was based on the ground of excusable negligence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that there was no excusable negligence.
1. The duty rests on every counsel to adopt and maintain an efficient system to account for all court notices. Colcol’s counsel failed to exercise ordinary prudence by not instructing his new clerk from the start on how to handle received pleadings and notices. Such instruction was given only after the incident.
2. The alleged negligence was therefore inexcusable. The Court cited precedent that a lawyer’s failure to appear due to a clerk’s mistake in misfiling a notice is not excusable.
3. Given the patent inexcusability of the alleged ground, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to address Colcol’s other point regarding the affidavit of merits.
4. The motion for a new trial rests on the sound discretion of the trial court, and no error was found in its exercise.
DISPOSITIVE: The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, with double costs against appellant to be paid by his counsel.